it’s a good thing she didn’t do that then, the issue you and others seem to have is unexamined transmisogyny. it is legitimately vile that you think ‘transvestigating’, the word for trying to strip a woman of dignity and respect for being trans, is applicable to discussing whether someone is trans. why is it disrespectful to the dead to call them a woman, but not disrespectful to call them a man? are we really doing tokenism about “trans voices” when the tone of the thread is split almost perfectly by pronoun tags?

[+] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] junebug2@hexbear.net 17 points 3 days ago

disengage plus an argument doesn’t count, but i’m sure it would eat at you to not be able to get your last word. i also asked several questions, not just one, but i guess it’s easier to change the subject, right?

your words, for the record: “I find doing transvestigations on unconsenting people bizarre regardless of the motivation

If you don’t see how absolutely out of pocket it is to post-hoc unilaterally decide that a dead person was in “denial” about their gender identity then I just don’t think we can find agreement on this tbh.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong about what Bushnell’s identity was btw.”

the actual, direct phenomenon you claim to be bothered by is some of us calling the dead a woman, because you are so blinded by cisheteronormativity that you think it’s offensive. the fancy words are cute, but talking about the words and actions of a person when they were alive isn’t post hoc, and multiple people presenting different arguments for something actually isn’t unilateral. i have already described why calling this ‘transvestigation’ is inappropriate. i have no doubt whatsoever that you find evidence of transfem lives to be ‘out of pocket’, but you could at least have the decency to own your position.